Justice And Compassion Are Mutually Inclusive | Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Sportsman To Retain Passport And Attend Overseas Shooting Events Till January 2026
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has modified an earlier order restricting the overseas travel of an individual accused in a criminal case, allowing him to retain his passport and travel abroad until January 5, 2026. The Court held that denying such permission would adversely impact the professional career of the petitioner, a reputed sportsperson, who has been invited to participate in international shooting events in Slovenia and the United States. While partially allowing the petition, the Court directed that the petitioner must return and appear before the trial court on or before the specified date without seeking further extension.
The Court observed that "justice and compassion are mutually inclusive", stating the importance of balancing accountability with context-driven relief. Referring to precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court reaffirmed that the right to travel abroad is an integral human and constitutional right, particularly where the individual's history indicates no flight risk and active cooperation with judicial proceedings.
In view of this, the Court modified the trial court's prior order which had limited the passport release till August 12, 2025, and allowed the petitioner’s travel till the end of the international sporting engagement.
The present case originated from a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner challenged an order dated June 5, 2025, issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar. This order had stemmed from an FIR No. 72 dated February 27, 2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, and 199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar.
The petitioner had applied for the release of his passport and permission to travel abroad until January 5, 2026. However, the trial court had only partially allowed this application, permitting the release of the passport until August 12, 2025. This date corresponded with the next scheduled hearing for the framing of charges in the case.
In the present petition before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated in the FIR and that he is a reputed sportsman who has represented the country in various national and international shooting competitions. Supporting this, the petitioner submitted an invitation to attend shooting camps in Slovenia and the United States, with the final event concluding on December 31, 2025. This invitation was recorded in Annexure P-50.
It was further submitted that the invitation had been duly placed before the trial court and verified by the prosecution. The petitioner was also stated to be a member of various recognized shooting associations. Despite these submissions, the trial court had allowed his travel only up to the date of the next hearing, August 12, 2025.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248, arguing that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.
On issuing notice of motion, Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appeared for the respondent-State and accepted the notice. He did not dispute the petitioner’s status as a sportsman or the legitimacy of his invitation to the international shooting camps concluding on December 31, 2025. However, he opposed the prayer for passport release till January 5, 2026 on the grounds that the petitioner’s presence was essential for the framing of charges.
The record before the Court established that the petitioner had earlier been permitted to travel abroad and had complied with all stipulated conditions, including appearing before the trial court within the specified period.
The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in multiple national and international shooting events and had received invitations to attend further events in Slovenia and the United States, concluding on December 31, 2025. The Court stated "the presence of accused on each and every date is not necessary and even the charges can be framed in his absence."
In discussing the principles underlying its decision, the Court stated: "a delicate balance must be struck between the rights of the accused and those of the victim... justice and compassion are mutually inclusive."
The judgment referenced the decision in M. Viswanathan vs. M/s. S.K. Tiles & Potteries P. Ltd. and others 2010 (4) SCC (Cri) 298, noting: "It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice... It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist."
The Court also cited the precedent set in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2020) 10 SCC 77, noting: "The lodging of an FIR should not in the facts of the present case be a bar on the travel of the appellant... The conditions which a court imposes for the grant of bail... must bear a proportional relationship to the purpose of imposing the conditions."
Further, the Court reiterated the importance of the right to travel abroad, referencing Mrs. Maneka Gandhi (supra) and Satish Chandra Verma Vs. Union of India and others 2019 (2) SCT 741, stating: "The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual... Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance."
With these observations, the Court found that the petitioner, being an Indian citizen with a history of compliance, posed no risk of fleeing justice. It concluded that denying permission to travel would have a serious negative impact on the petitioner’s sporting career.
The Court partially allowed the petition and modified the earlier order dated June 5, 2025, with several specific conditions. It directed that the petitioner must appear before the trial court on or before January 5, 2026 and shall not seek any extension in this regard.
The Court stated that the petitioner must surrender his passport and join the proceedings after January 5, 2026. During the interim period, the petitioner may be represented through counsel, and must ensure that he does not cause any delay or disruption to the trial.
The petitioner was directed not to dispute his identity as the accused and to raise no objection if the prosecution records evidence in his absence, provided his counsel is present.
The petitioner was further instructed to appear before the trial court as and when required. The trial court was granted the discretion to impose any additional conditions it deemed appropriate.
The Court clarified that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It also directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Chirag Kumar Sardana v. State of Haryana and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:095648
Case Number: CRM-M-40344-2025 (O & M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
